Marin said yes to marijuana use, but Golden Gate Bridge officials are saying no to advertising pot on district property.

In November 2016, 69.6 percent of Marin voters — and 57 percent of state residents who cast ballots — supported Proposition 64, which legalized recreational cannabis, but Golden Gate Bridge officials don’t want to see any ads promoting the stuff.

That means there will be no advertising for marijuana services on the inside of ferry vessels, on the exterior of buses, on any of the kiosks at the San Rafael Transit Center, at ferry terminals or at bus shelters after bridge officials voted to prohibit the ads.

“We believe it’s just like alcohol and tobacco,” Dana Fehler, director of marketing for the bridge, told district officials last week. “(Marijuana) is now legal, but in the spirit of well-being, the district decided not to promote the use of those products.”

There are also concerns about federal funding the district receives for operations and projects. Marijuana use is illegal at the federal level and officials say dollars might be stripped if the district embraces marijuana advertising.

“We don’t want to bite the hands that feed us,” said Denis Mulligan, general manager of the bridge district.

Aside from well-being and legal issues, there is also a sense of unease surrounding marijuana and associated businesses.

“We don’t want to run ads that will upset members of the community, recognizing different people have different views,” Mulligan said. “That’s why we don’t allow political ads.”

Marin Supervisor Kate Sears, a member of the Golden Gate Bridge board, supported the advertising ban.

“There is lots of room for conversation about the benefits of medical cannabis,” she said. “But I really agree the advertising piece is a completely different situation.”

Board member Dick Grosboll of San Francisco cast the lone dissenting vote.

“I think cannabis has a bad reputation,” he said, noting its proven medicinal benefits. “I think this policy may be a little overbroad, to eliminate it entirely. I can’t support this policy.”

In its ban, the bridge district also cited concerns that advertisement of cannabis on public facilities could encourage illegal underage use. In addition, the district has a drug-free workplace policy and allowing the advertisement of cannabis could send a mixed message, according to a staff report on the issue.

Advertisement

“Further, there remain numerous restrictions on who can sell cannabis, as well as what forms of cannabis are legal. Requiring staff to verify that each proposed cannabis advertisement is from a licensed vendor and for a legal product is an unproductive use of staff time, particularly in light of the unsettled regulatory environment for cannabis,” the report read.

The bridge district has already received two requests for marijuana advertising, and both were turned down.

“I think this is the right thing because of the federal law,” said bridge director Gerald Cochran of Del Norte County. “But we can always come back and look at this in a year.”